No significant performance difference was found between the causal-only and simulation-only conditions, nor between the mismatched and partly matched conditions¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Causal-only and simulation-only teams did not differ significantly in learning-task performance. → B. Slof 2012
q3 i? The mismatched condition did not differ significantly from either partly matched condition in performance. → B. Slof 2012 (2)
Evidence¶
B. Slof 2012¶
B. Slof, G. Erkens, P. A. Kirschner, J. Janssen, J. G. M. Jaspers. (2012). Successfully carrying out complex learning-tasks through guiding teams' qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Instr Sci 40:623–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9185-2
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Planned orthogonal contrast on team performance scores between the two single-tool conditions; the test was not significant and equivalence was not tested.
"No significant difference was found between teams in the causal-only and simulation-only conditions, t(30) = 1.50, P[ 0.05, r = 0.26."
B. Slof 2012 (2)¶
B. Slof, G. Erkens, P. A. Kirschner, J. Janssen, J. G. M. Jaspers. (2012). Successfully carrying out complex learning-tasks through guiding teams' qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Instr Sci 40:623–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9185-2
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Games-Howell post-hoc tests comparing the mismatched condition to each partly matched condition on team performance; neither comparison was significant and equivalence was not tested.
"No significant differences were found ( t(16) = 1.01, P[ 0.05, r = 0.24, and t(16) = 1.36, P[ 0.05, r = 0.32 respectively), indicating that learning-task performance in the mismatched condition did not differ from performance in both partly matched conditions."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Learners in the matched condition exhibited more meta-cognitive and cognitive activities—monitoring, preparation, and ending discussions—than learners in other conditions — related
- Teams receiving part-task congruent representational tools (causal then simulation) outperformed teams with partly matched or mismatched tools on a complex business-economics learning task — related
- Teams with part-task congruent tools adjusted their representations across phases—broad causal representations first, then more selective algebraic specification—unlike single-tool teams — related
- Teams in the matched condition had more elaborate discussions of the domain than teams in the mismatched condition, especially about relations and mathematical relationships — related
- GCL-raising activations did not improve learning outcomes: neither prompted imagination nor disfluency produced a significant task-performance advantage — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
no-difference-single-tool-and-mismatched-conditions |
title |
No significant performance difference was found between the causal-only and simulation-only conditions, nor between the mismatched and partly matched conditions |
description |
No significant performance difference was found between the causal-only and simulation-only conditions, nor between the mismatched and partly matched conditions |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2012 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — b-slof-2012, b-slof-2012-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.